Slabbing detrimental to the price

I wonder if whoever slabbed this realizes that the dreaded "F" (as opposed to MS-66 or whatever the current beauty standard is these days) on the label reduced its demand so much that it sold for less than half of what it might have brought had it been auctioned raw.


RIC-19 (TR P COS III).

And, based upon the site's search function, this may well be the first LIBERTAS PVBLICA denarius of Nerva ever posted here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Part of the reason I dislike slabbing is what it did to the prices of American coins. Before slab companies were a thing, you look at US catalogs and coins we're priced in several categories: Good, Fine, Very Fine, About Uncirculated, and Uncirculated. The price gaps between them weren't really that exorbitant either. Then if you look at catalogs after slabbing came in, all of the sudden there is a huge spike at the higher end, and a coin that would have sold for $70 in "Uncirculated Condition" might all of the sudden be worth $75 as MS-64, $120 as MS-65, $200 as MS-66, $350 as MS-67. And likewise I think it's depressed the other categories. Now if a coin is not worth slabbing, well, it's not really worth collecting. Especially when most collectors today will not buy a coin unless it's in a slab.

I think of that's part reason why US coins are so overpriced, and don't seem like a good deal compared to many world coins that have not been subject to the slabbing craze. Slabbing has turned a hobby into a commodity, allowing investors to come in and buy coins they don't know anything about simply because it has an MS-65 or MS-66 label, and at the highest end the price gaps between each MS point has become exorbitant, while your VF, or F coins (unless rare) have languished as the red headed stepchild nobody wants. Many are simply tossed away into "junk silver" piles, to be melted or stored away in bags just for the metal content.

I see the same thing happening with Heritage Auctions and ancients. How else do you explain why an Athenian Tet that was at best $2000 raw, sold for $30,000+ because of an MS* label? Or how the $30 "MS-65" coin we were tracking in a thread here and making fun of, ended up selling for hundreds of dollars because of the MS tag. You see the same with coins that get a VF or lower rating, they are usually sold cheap on eBay, sometimes lower than raw would get, because no one wants them. The MS mentality is creeping into our hobby. I wonder how long it will be before the threads in this form go from "I want to learn more about this coin", or "This coin might have a hole or a countermark, but it is historically fascinating because of ......" to simply "Disaster, I sent this in to certify MS but it came back AU", or "Is this raw coin an MS? Is it worth buying or not?", or "Here are the results from my submissions for slabbing."

 

I have been able to pick up some great bargains because no one seems to want the graded F or VF coins. I certainly do not mind accepting them into my collection especially when I can purchase them for less than the raw coin in the same grade.

 

I was at a show yesterday where I looked at some slabbed ancients. I was interested in two coins, both Trajan Asses with similar Pax reverses. Both are common but had aspects I appreciated. One was graded "AU, Smoothed", the other "VF, Smoothed". The higher grade example on magnification was heavily micro-pitted with a lot of breaks in the patina and priced at $300. The VF had a smooth patina, good surfaces and no major problems (aside from the very slight smoothing) and priced at $150. Honestly I disagreed with assigned grades and felt both were "VF". I bought the so-called lower grade example. I was a no-brainer. I really dont understand why both were graded so differently. Such arbitrary grade assignments are confusing not just to me with decades of experience, but must also be to those who arent familiar with what they are looking at.

But I must admit, it took me a lot of time and magnification under various light to spot the smoothing.

 

I hope that slabbing doesn't become popular among ancient collectors. I enjoy US coinage but hate the fact that I can't really hold and appreciate it like I can an ancient coin for fear of ruining it's value.

 

That’s a nice pickup. I have a Nerva with a Libertas Publica reverse as well. I must say it’s funny to see “Nerva” and “beauty standard” in the same sentence



Nerva, 96-98. AR Denarius (17 mm, 3.45 g), Rome, 97.
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS III P P Laureate head of Nerva to right./ Rev. LIBERTAS PVBLICA Libertas standing left, holding pileus in right hand and scepter in left. RIC II 19.
Ex. Leu Numismatik

 

Yes, but keep in mind some of the price increases are due to people realizing based on the census data just how rare some coins are in particular grades. Before slabbing, someone paying the same for a 67 that may have been a finest surviving example as they would have paid for a 63 was getting an incredible bargain.

I'm not advocating for slabbing of ancients, but I think in this regard the price increases you see in higher end US coinage is largely a market correction and not unjustified inflation of prices.

 

Roman Collector, Why should an ancient coin sell for less slabbed versus raw ? You are buying what you see regardless of what is printed on the slab . The slab may offer some comfort to a collector in regards to authenticity, therefor actually bringing a higher price than market value. Most of the coins I've sold at auction or by private treaty were slabbed only if they were in very choice condition or if that coin type had a history of many forgeries.

 

RomanCollector, it's impossible to make comments on your initial post as you don't state what the coin sold for or what you think it should have sold for.

Ken Dorney, If you have the cert numbers I can explain the difference in the grades, or if you could post pics. I can guarantee if one was AU and one was VF, the AU coin had a lot more detail than the VF. The grades are not arbitrary. Also, it's a good thing the slabs were marked "smoothing" since you probably wouldn't have noticed it if they weren't, since you admit you had difficulty finding it even knowing it was there.

Barry Murphy

 

$42. I would have expected ~ $90 if sold raw at an auction site catering to ancient coin collectors.

 

I love to see underpriced slabs. I buy them and break them out. My slab breaker is 2500 years old and a couple kilos weight: this:


I can't get too worked up about the demerits of slabbing. If a coin is underpriced due to having a low slab grade, and I like it, I buy it. What I have found is that the buyers of slabs are so focused on grade, that they will often bid very high prices on coins of very bad style, or for strikes that, even if they merit 4/5 or more, are bad in a way that I would find unacceptable, for example cutting off the heads of charioteers or horses on a reverse scene. Slab collectors buy bad coins just because they are sharp. And the reverse happens too. They don't bid on coins in EF condition with perfect strikes, exquisite style fresh dies, and beautiful old toning, because EF (or VF or a rare F) doesn't make their grade. They also don't buy rarities because they don't make their minimum condition grade, such as the coin discussed here. Fine with me. I'll buy them. We have different collecting interests. I think my interests are better informed and more educated. I am buying coins that are beautiful and/or. They buy coins that are sharp. Let them. I know what is good. I have my Slab Hammer for what they overlook.

 

I'm sure for the right price NGC could probably slab that...though it would take a heck of a custom slab to house that puppy.

 

As a dealer I would have paid $30 at most for this coin, so to me it sold for too much. It's worn pretty slick. There are similar ones on VCoins in the $60-75 range retail. At $90 I would expect a full VF.

But 1 coin in selling for too little or too much doesn't really prove anything. Every sale from Triton to crappiest sales online, there are coins that sell for too much and coins that sell for too little. It's all a function of who's looking and who's interested at the time the sale closes.

NGC would not holder Andrew's lump of bronze at any price.

Barry

 

But if they slab my slab hammer, how can I break it out?

 

I understand, it would be a nightmare to slab. Still, if I'm not mistaken isn't that lump of bronze an aes rude? So it would technically be money, even if not fit for any type of holder?

 

Do collectors of U.S. coins buy solely, or even primarily, based on a coin's grade, even if the collector himself cannot visually differentiate the grades among coins of a similar type? This post would seem to imply that the answer is yes. Why would a true collector buy a coin solely for its grade if the coin itself had no other additional appeal to him/her and the collector couldn't even tell the difference from a similar coin?

With regard to the slabbing and grading of ancients: has any serious collector on this site ever chosen a particular ancient coin in preference to others of a similar type solely based on NGC's or any other grading service's grade? I'm not talking about features such as authenticity, or tooling, or evaluation of porosity, etc., but solely about the "strike" and "surface" grades placed on that coin. If so, can you post pictures of all the coins that were under consideration (including the one chosen) and include the grade that was assigned to the various candidates that you evaluated? Maybe this would provide some insight into why you believe grades matter on ancient coins.

In the case of non-ancient coins, it would appear that higher grade = higher value and for most of these collectors, that's what they're pursuing in their coins. From my perspective, they're primarily investors, not collectors.

In the case of ancient coins, authenticity, non-evidence of tooling, non-porosity, etc. are equally important to a coin in F condition as for an EF coin. Once these criteria are determined, it's usually easy to make a personal determination about which coin appeals to your particular collecting interests (and fits within your budget). I can't imagine why a third party's opinion about a coin's surface or strike would make any difference to someone who's primarily a collector rather than an investor. If you can't see the difference visually, why does it matter (other than value)? If you can see the difference visually, why wouldn't you just pick the coin that appealed to you more?

 

In many cases, yes. The uniformity of modern coinage can make date sets rather boring and thus to add challenge to a set you can go for a target minimum grade. Some people assemble grade sets where they want an example of each grade for a particular type or date.

In many cases, people just want the best grade they can afford. For moderns, the high availability of MS70s for many issues has made even 69s practically worthless.

That wasn't my main point, however. For classic US coins, most type collectors are satisfied with just having a nice eye-appealing coin for type. But if for a certain classic issue it's shown that there are extremely few survivors above MS66, the few MS67 examples have fierce competition from the pool of well-heeled collectors that are going for a highest graded set. This is just a matter of high demand for the top grade coins with a very low supply, which is why I refer to it as a market correction for coins where the true scarcity of those top grades is revealed by the census data.

 

This is exactly why I prefer ancient coins in slabs, just like I also prefer modern coins to be slabbed. I'm not chasing a number grade, and would be okay with a major dealer or auction house's guarantee of authenticity. However, there are issues such as smoothing and tooling that may be very subtle and no immediately visible to a novice like myself, but have a significant impact on market acceptability. Just like cleaning and hairlines on modern coins. There's a reason why people gravitate toward a third party opinion. There was a recent thread on this forum on that very topic, about how dealers and auction houses have a vested interest in not pointing out problems, illustrating why a third party opinion is so important. I'm glad that I can buy ancients in third party slabs and will continue to do so. I think it is here to stay.

 

This is simple. Slabs are aimed at new collectors making the move from modern coins where AU is faulty and VF is shameful. If a dealer has 100 slabs in a case ranging from VF to MS, the MS coins will attract views from many more new collectors while the VF's are more likely seen only by Mike and the crackers who have discovered that the lower grade coins do not carry the 'slab tax' found on the MS coins.

I have not seen this on NGC slabs but I have seen a few thicker bronzes making a good effort to free themselves from off brand slabs when a thick coin was forced into a thin slab. I recall one that removed itself from a cheap slab with the help of the Postal Service. I'm glad they don't slab giant hunks but it would be fun to see a video of Mike throwing it on the concrete yelling, "Aes, free thyself."

 

Yes it's Aes Rude and yes it was money. NGC doesn't slab any Aes Rude, Aes Signatum, Aes Grave or any cast coins of any type.

Barry Murphy